Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 22

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#2720304 7-Jun-2021 17:25

SomeoneSomewhere:

sir1963:

[

A tax could allow better cycleways to be built which will significantly improve safety

"That assumes that there's a link between revenue and expenditure and there usually isn't."

Taxing bikes isn't necessary to do that. For example, the regional fuel tax largely doesn't go towards car-focused projects.

Yes. Infact it makes sense to do this, because the more people that use bikes for travel, the less cars that are on the road, and therefore the less congestion. SO paying for cycleways is directly benefiting drivers with shorter trip times and less congestion. But when we have 4 million cars, which is a huge increase from 20 years ago, we do also need more roads

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2720307 7-Jun-2021 17:31

mattwnz:

Yes. Infact it makes sense to do this, because the more people that use bikes for travel, the less cars that are on the road, and therefore the less congestion. SO paying for cycleways is directly benefiting drivers with shorter trip times and less congestion.

I agree but thats been negated many times in this thread.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2725443 11-Jun-2021 16:20

I have a solution.

Get rid of fuel and RUC taxes/fees.

Get rid of roading from council rates

Bill everyone an extra $3k in income tax, and councils get funded by the central pool along with NZTA.

Funding for roads and cycleways can then be funded on a proportionate basis, so if cycling numbers increase, they get more funding. And it does away with the RUC issue for electric vehicles.

Funding can be calculated on road type, highways vs gravel, Addition harbour bridge vs cycle bridge.

Everyone pays equally , everyone benefits equally.

SomeoneSomewhere

1802 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2725444 11-Jun-2021 16:23

Doesn't necessarily reflect historical over/under funding of different modes of transport.

Also doesn't allow for sin tax/user pays, which you seem to love so much.

Road users that cause relatively little damage to the road are subsidising those (like heavy truckers) who absolutely tear them up.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2727466 11-Jun-2021 18:08

SomeoneSomewhere:

Doesn't necessarily reflect historical over/under funding of different modes of transport.

Also doesn't allow for sin tax/user pays, which you seem to love so much.

Road users that cause relatively little damage to the road are subsidising those (like heavy truckers) who absolutely tear them up.

But on the flip side, the users who drive the whole economy are rewarded.

We could also remove the GST claw back businesses get on fuel that could solve that.

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2727470 11-Jun-2021 18:15

There is no such thing as ‘GST claw back’.

SomeoneSomewhere

1802 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2727481 11-Jun-2021 19:02

Do we really want to encourage more trucks for journeys that could be made by rail, though? Or by better logistics management to limit the amount & distance of goods trucked?

If you make road transit cheaper, you *will* get more traffic, and you *will* need to spend buckets on more roads and/or end up with gridlock.

I could see taxing 'productive' and 'unproductive' traffic differently but then you end up worsening the Ute dilemma.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2727483 11-Jun-2021 19:13

Senecio:

Would love to see a study undertaken. Take a 1,000 people who cycle and 1,000 who don't. I'm confident that you'll find that the cyclists pay more in total tax contribution than those who don't cycle.

I bet you'd also see a correlation between having higher income and more control over their own hours with those who insist cycling is something everyone can do because they can make it work for them personally vs. those who on lower incomes too.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2727484 11-Jun-2021 19:19

SomeoneSomewhere:

Do we really want to encourage more trucks for journeys that could be made by rail, though? Or by better logistics management to limit the amount & distance of goods trucked?

If you make road transit cheaper, you *will* get more traffic, and you *will* need to spend buckets on more roads and/or end up with gridlock.

I could see taxing 'productive' and 'unproductive' traffic differently but then you end up worsening the Ute dilemma.

The limit it to vehicles below a certain weight.

SomeoneSomewhere

1802 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2727486 11-Jun-2021 19:25

Limit the tax, or limit the exemption?

We want to tax heavy vehicles because they significantly damage the roads and if businesses can use rail or buy locally with minimal cost increases, we want to incentivise that.

We want to tax lighter vehicles to reduce congestion when people could be on public transport, cycles, walking, or combining trips, so that we don't have to keep building roads as much.

This is before considering carbon.

The basic answer is that government policy wants to discourage the use of road transport where possible and selective taxation is one of its most effective tools.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2727487 11-Jun-2021 19:29

GV27:

I bet you'd also see a correlation between having higher income and more control over their own hours with those who insist cycling is something everyone can do because they can make it work for them personally vs. those who on lower incomes too.

Lots of people on lower incomes who cycle to work in the orchards around here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2727488 11-Jun-2021 19:30

sir1963:

I have a solution.

Get rid of fuel and RUC taxes/fees.

Get rid of roading from council rates

Bill everyone an extra $3k in income tax, and councils get funded by the central pool along with NZTA.

Funding for roads and cycleways can then be funded on a proportionate basis, so if cycling numbers increase, they get more funding. And it does away with the RUC issue for electric vehicles.

Funding can be calculated on road type, highways vs gravel, Addition harbour bridge vs cycle bridge.

Everyone pays equally , everyone benefits equally.

that's not equal.

to be equal - 1. heavier things pay proportionately more. 2. and payment needs to be per unit distance travelled.

so when you buy bread/cheese or an iphone on trademe next time, it won't cost you $3, it will cost you $300.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2727489 11-Jun-2021 19:34

Commute cycling choices are governed by complex variables some of which correlate to income and some don't. A few years ago I used to regularly drive through an industrial area and recall seeing plenty of industrial workers cycling to work in work clothes.

Proximity to work is always going to be a big variable. Some industrial areas are short distance to appropriately priced housing and some are not.

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#2727493 11-Jun-2021 19:39

Rikkitic:
GV27:

I bet you'd also see a correlation between having higher income and more control over their own hours with those who insist cycling is something everyone can do because they can make it work for them personally vs. those who on lower incomes too.

Lots of people on lower incomes who cycle to work in the orchards around here.

If you don't have much spare money, biking to work is pretty cheap.
It's cheap to get set up and cheap to keep running.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

SomeoneSomewhere

1802 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2727494 11-Jun-2021 19:40

Which of course leads "build it and they will come": if you spend no money on cyclists because you have no cyclists, you will continue having no cyclists. If you spend money because you expect it to cause a bunch more cyclists to appear, well, you might get a whole pile of cyclists.

Consider where Auckland's commuter rail network was in the 90s vs now. 20-fold increase in patronage.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 22